Religion vs Science
I have met, talked to or heard from a number of people over the years that believe that religion is a bad thing, that there is no God, and that all forms of religious institution should be banished. A number of them also feel that science proves this, and they speak of it in a manner to where it becomes not science but Science in the same manner
( Read more... )
A number of people have stated the case against a necessary separation of science and religion. The current Dalai Lama wrote "The Universe in a Single Atom," in which he explains why the separation of religion/spirituality and science is harmful to both institutions, that there is no way to separate the two that are essentially one.
I'm pretty sure that there are people that want separation on both sides of this debate. There are religious fundamentalists that state what we've discovered so far in the scientific fields can be dismissed or labeled heretical because these discoveries do not follow God's law. Likewise, there are atheists and scientists that are just as much against religion and faith as the religious are against science for basically the same reasons, only in the inverse - God cannot be proven empirically. For an example of the religious against science, take a look at Ben Stein and what he has to say about Darwinism - a very good example of what a modern creationist is and is not.
So you could just as easily have said, "I have met, talked to or heard from a number of people over the years that believe that science is a bad thing, that it is against God's law, and that all forms of scientific study should be corrected to better fit the doctrine. A number of them also feel that the Bible/Qur'an/Torah/(etc) proves this, and they speak in a manner to where it becomes not religion but Religion in the same manner as science. [...] So would these people have us exchange one God for another, one that lacks scientific rigor and ethical regulation? Religion in and of itself can lead to terrible places, just as some of the ethics and morals Nazis used claiming racial and religious justification. Societies where science is banned don't tend to have decent health-care ..."
Okay, that last bit got silly, but you get my point (by the way, you Godwinned your own discussion). No matter what side of the fence one stands on in this debate (that is, on one side or another but not for both equally), there are flaws in reasoning. As you say, religion and science both have a lot to answer for and what they have to answer for is not enough to dismiss either without some serious thought and soul-searching. I disagree that there needs to be a separation of reasoning between religion and science regarding how the universe works and why, though; religion and science, depending on beliefs and rigor, could explain both the "how" and the "why" in tandem.
All that said and for what it's worth, I've been playing my own Devil's Advocate, and I don't believe in God as I was taught to. I don't believe that we understand everything, nor that full understanding is possible. I am not an atheist, either - my belief is that I just don't know, but I have a few good ideas. I don't personally believe that it is important to have set religious or spiritual beliefs, at least not right now. I acknowledge and respect that others do believe in a god, and believe that their beliefs have merit. I also acknowledge and respect that others do not believe in god, and also believe their beliefs have merit. I do not respect the beliefs of someone that hasn't bothered to sit down and carefully think about and come to their own conclusions about religion/spirituality whatever conclusions they come to ... essentially, those that blindly spout vitriol against another standpoint without pausing to consider the opposite view.
Reply
I don't believe in the God I grew up with, but I also do not totally disbelieve in that God. After all, I could be wrong. If that god created us and the rest of the universe and we are bound by a set of specific rules governing our ethics, it can't do much harm by adhering to some of those rules. That is, I'm not going to go out and murder someone because I believe that murder is immoral and I'm not going to whore myself in a temple, but I am going to have unwed sex and use birth control when I do, corrupt men when I'm on my period, generally be a pain in the ass, and I do have pride. These don't have to be religious beliefs, but they have little to do with science.
Religion and science both have been used in atrocious ways. The crusades and every other religiously-inspired negative/violent action on the religious side ... the atomic age in its utter destruction, all blind research and pure science that resulted in any number of atrocities (biological warfare, atomic bombs, dirty bombs, etc) on the scientific side. Both religion and science have been directly and indirectly responsible for making life better in many ways and worse in many ways for all of us, but is it the fault of religion or science or both? I feel the answer is that neither religion nor science are purely responsible for the "bad" and "good" that we have experienced. No, the one responsible for the application of either is humanity. No matter if you are of the "pure religion" or "pure science" side, we humans are imperfect, and neither side believes that we can or will ever know everything that there is to know, but to greater or lesser degrees both sides will try. We are imperfect and ignorant creatures, responsible for such beauty and horror that it's difficult to attribute to any god or gene.
...sorry for the badly-written essay.
Reply
Leave a comment